What do you think about this Philadelphia speed trap?
Nov 29th, 2007 | By Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. | Category: Blogs, PA & NJ Speed TrapsWell I am just assuming it was a speed trap. I was driving yesterday down Interstate I-95 southbound from Bucks County to Philadelphia. Soon after I crossed into Philadelphia (close to the Academy Road exit), I saw a car pulled over by an unmarked car with its hidden police lights on which appeared to have pulled over another vehicle. Behind the unmarked police car was a marked Philadelphia Police SUV.
The unmarked police car looked like an everyday car. I could not make out the type of car. It was not one of the regular police car models that we normally see on the road. This seemed a little unfair to me.
As you may know, in Pennsylvania, only State Police officers are permitted by law to use radar. Since the Philadelphia Police, which includes the Philadelphia Highway Patrol are not designated as Pennsylvania State Police, I do not think under established law that they have the right to track vehicles speed by radar.
So it appears that the Philadelphia Police have resorted to using completely unmarked cars to observe and “pace” speeders by following them. Non-State Police officers are allowed to use different forms of speed traps such as stop watches, VASCAR, and pacing. On Interstate I-95 in Philadelphia there is no room on the highway to safely conduct speed traps using a timing device.
I checked the Philadelphia Police Department’s website and found nothing on the unmarked car-speed trap initiative. Maybe the police pulled that car over for some other reason. Maybe they were looking for the driver of the vehicle who had an outstanding warrant. If this was a speed trap, it seems somewhat unfair. What do you think?
The author of this Law Blog, Bucks County PA & Mercer County, NJ criminal attorney, Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. of Saile & Saile LLP, Attorneys-at-Law practices both New Jersey and Pennsylvania criminal, traffic violations, and DUI/DWI/DAI law. Check out our website for DUI penalties. We handle all NJ Municipal Court cases including DUI in the following NJ Municipal Courts: Hopewell Township, Ewing Township, Trenton, Lawrence Township, Hamilton, Pennington, and other Mercer County, Burlington County, and Camden County, NJ courts. We also handle lower bucks county DUI and traffic violation cases in the following towns: Bensalem, Southampton, Richboro, Newtown, Levittown, Langhorne, Doylestown, Warminster, Trevose, Feasterville, Warrington, Bristol, Fallsington, Yardley, New Hope, Holland, Washington Crossing, PA, and other Bucks County courts. We handle DUI cases in Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery County, PA. We are located just outside of Philadelphia in lower Bucks County.
in other states i’ve even seen newer model ford mustangs being used as unmarked cars. i don’t know, it just seems to be a little underhanded to disguise themselves like that. i’m kind of old fashioned, reminds me of an old west gunslinger resorting to shooting their opponent in the back because they can’t beat them in a fair fight.
Tim I agree. I am sure that pennsylvania police officers have a different side to that argument. A PA police officer once told me that PA is the only state in the nation that does not allow its local police officers use radar.
I have not confirmed this but, as you know in NJ, all police officers are permitted to use radar.
Mr. Saile, if person is pulled over in NJ for speeding and the officer admits to doing this because of the radar in the police car, do the police have to provide discovery material on the the radar device?
If a person in NJ is charged with a speeding violation, that person can make a Discovery request upon the NJ Municipal Court prosecutor and in that Discovery should be information about the radar device.
What about if a person is just stopped for speeding because of radar, but was not charged with speeding, was charged with careless and dui…
Should the radar information be included in the discovery, ? and if so asked for, but not included, could the stop and all charges be thrown out?
If you were not charged with speeding, how is the radar information relevant to you careless driving ticket?
Mr. Saile,
There must be a reason for the traffic stop. NO?
From what I have read on many lawyer websites, the police must have a valid reason to pull you over…..
In the case where the reason to stop a vehicle was based on radar for speeding, wouldn’t that make the radar discovery not only relevant, but paramount to the State’s case?
The State has admitted in the police report, … the officer was running radar on the highway from a church school parking lot, and the radar said i was speeding, and thus i was pulled over for that. That was the reason I was pulled over, according to th epolice report.
That being the State’s stated reason, am I not entitled to discovery that shows that there was a radar device in that patrol car that night, and that it was calibrated and operating?
Here is something I found on th einternet concerning NJ traffic stops, on an attorneys website…also, read my post directly above this post.
According to this statement below, if the police officer’s reason for stopping a vehicle is due to radar, …. is it not reasonable for the State to have to produce discovery on the radar to validate the stop as not being an ilegal stop?
3) Illegal Stop – a New Jersey DWI Enforcement officer cannot stop a car without having a reasonable and articulate basis to believe that a law has been violated, or he can articulate unusual operation of the motor vehicle. Therefore if the officer stops the car just because he saw the driver walk out of a bar and get into the car, the New Jersey DWI charge may be dismissed based on a violation of the driver’s rights.
The police officr opened this “box” with is report.
Although police officers may be trained to tell a persons speed by eye only, this particular police report says it was with the use of radar.
It is the only reason for the stop, and I would think radar discovery is then essential to not only the State’s case, but my defense.
Think about htis a minute, if a person is oulled over for speeding by radar, and gets a speeding ticket, the radar discovery as you have said, would be part of the case…
Now, that means not only the ticket is validated by the radar, but also the stop.
In my case, as I was stopped because of radar, is not radar discovery essential to the case?
Mr. Saile, are you saying the police can say they pull anyone over for speeding by radar, offer no proof as to the radar whatsoever, not give the person a spedding ticket, but charge the person with any other offense they find.
If this is the truth, police could pull people over at will to search cars and do whatever they want, and say it was because of radar, and not have to even prove the police vehicle was equipped with radar.
I can not believe this is true.
Is this the law, really?
Mr Saile,
for a more simple answer to your question,
BECAUSE i was pulled over for speeding by radar, … it is in the police report as such,
do we not have the right to question the contents of the police report and the reason for the stop?
If a NJ police officer pulls someone over for speeding and utilized radar, then the radar information should be discoverable.
If the prosecution fails to hand over all Discovery, you can file a motion with the court demanding Discovery.
If the prosecution then fails to turn it over, the prosecution may be prevented from using the Disoverable information in a trial to prove the offense.
Jim:
You should speak to your lawyer about your specific case. I am only commenting in general terms and not about your case. The facts in your case may be different and I am certainly not your lawyer.
I understand you are speaking in general terms, and I also understand that anyhting can happen in court.
If what you say is correct, and the radar information would need to be presented to the court by the State if we ask for it, and if we do not get it, then I would think the case needs to be dismissed, because the stop would then be ilegal, and the fruits of the stop should then surpressed.
This is just one of the defenses in my case.
This is one of the reasons I had to get rid of my attorney in this case after 26 months…. he never demanded discovery, … the first 10 appearances i was sent home being told discovery was not completed.
For an attorney with a reputation as a litigator, and one who has in the past raised objections and made motions in thousands of cases, … I thought IT WAS TOTALLY WRONG HE DID ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING IN MY CASE FOR 26 MONTHS, HAVING ME MAKE APPEARANCE AFTER APPEARANCE— so on the 11th appearance we mutualy agreed to part ways, but it wasnt fair to me by a longshot!
You ask about the facts of the case. I am ofunsure what more i can add. And I do not have the legal education to understand the word “facts” as they relate to litigation. That is something lawyers take for granted; when they use the term “facts of the case”, they know what it means, but regular people really have no idea what it means in legal and practical legal meaning.
Now, that being said, here are what Iabelievce are the facts of the case in relation to the police report.
1)The officer was runing radar and thought he had me speeding
2) I was pulled over for speeding on a State highway.
3) I was not issued a speeding ticket
4) I was arrested for DUI based by a 2nd officer who came to the scene.
5) I helped the officer fix and get the alcotest machine to work. I touched the power cord and back of the machine and read th emanual and offeredc suggestions onhow to gewt it unfrozen.
6) I blew a 0.09 reading on the machine
7) The discovery of the 0.10% solution certificate was not cert6ified and singed off on as the other solutions were
9) The arresdting officer did not think I was drunk and wroite no narritvie concerning foeld sobriety or observations– nothing of this was in the page numbered 6 page police report
10) The Judge on my last appearance said she did not understand why i have not had a trial yet.
11) I am innocent and demand a trial.
12) I am still waiting for a trial.
THOSE ARE THE HONEST FACTS OF THE CASE! ( AS FAR AS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM GOES)
10)
3)I wa
I think the Judge, on the 789th day after my arrest, on my 11th court apppearance, the fact that she siad (on record) she “did not understand why I havn’t had a trial yet” was a really big coup for me.
It was a win of a point, when and if it goes to the law division.
Even with my attorney standing there asking off of the case because of my criticism of his representation of me, nothing was brought forth to attempt to expalion why I have not had a trial yet!
I said, Your Honner, I will not stand in the way of my attorney being off this case, the NJ Supremme Copurt Ordered on Jan 10, 2006 all DUI alcotest cases to proceed to trial.
And no party could answer as to why I have not had a trial, on record, and, and i said I should” have had a trial long long ago”, and the judge basicaly agrereed, saying she has no idea why it hasnt gone to trial.
Now, you can imagaine, me up there, in front of the bench, trying to speak, it took me a minute to get my bearings and even respond to the Judge…. but I was able to speak and I did say what I have wanted to say for so long, what my attorney should have said on my behalf long long ago.
My attorney, based on my meeting with him in September, was counting on that I would fold under pressure and not be able to say what I had to say,, but he gambled and lost, I was able to reference the CHun Order, and was able to get the Judge to admit she did not understand why this case has not gone to trial.
It was almost like Tom Cruise getting Jack Nicholson to admit to a code red in the movie.
I really think it wast that big!!!!!